OFFICIAL REPORT.

On a point of Order. I wish to raise a question and to obtain your general ruling, Mr. Speaker, relating to certain things which are done in this House, or may be done in the future, when a specific Motion is moved. Standing Orders 88 and 90, which I will not read, refer to the exclusion of strangers from Debates in this House. I wish to know from you, whether the terra "strangers" is to include officials of the House whose salaries come out of Votes of this House, who are sitting in this Chamber all the time that hon. Members are in this Chamber, whether the exclusion affects those officials, whether only a certain section of officials are affected, or all of them. I should like your ruling upon that point because, as the matter stands, I think it is in rather a vague position. When strangers are asked to leave this House, Peers who may be present in the Gallery are permitted to remain, and even ladies who are in the Ladies' Gallery need not withdraw unless they like, according to precedent in this House.

I understand that the hon. Member's question has reference to the Official Reporter and his staff, and as to whether or not they stand in any different category from the representatives of the Press in the Gallery. I have looked into that matter, and can find no reason, as things at present stand, for making any differentiation. It seems to be quite clear that, if the House decide, or the Committee decide, that, strangers must withdraw, that must include the whole of the reporting staffs.

If the whole of the reporting staffs, including officials of this House, must retire, and if the term "strangers" includes all these reporters, then does not the term "strangers" include also the messengers who so about this House, to whom attention was drawn last night when they were moving about the House, and whom the Chairman stated were excluded from the term "strangers?" I have asked for your ruling on the point whether only one section of the officials of this House are to be classed in the term "strangers," and excluded, while another section is not to be excluded, and, if so, which section is to be included within the term
2524
"strangers" when strangers are again spied, and which section is not to be included in the term "strangers?" We can then have the matter cleared up.

I note that when Standing Order 90, which is the one relevant, was recently amended, making provision for members of the other House to be here, the other points were not dealt with and, therefore, the Chair is bound to go by the previous practice of the House. That, I think, must stand until the House itself decide on some change. It may be that the Standing Order should be reconsidered, but I do not express an opinion. The Standing Order is quite clear in itself, and its implications are bound up with the practice of the House, which goes back over a long period.

Have you considered this aspect of the matter, that this House gave instructions that its proceedings shall be reported? In carrying out that instruction it employs servants. Are these servants, here by the instruction of the House, to be regarded as servants who are here because the House has endowed them with certain privileges?

That matter has been present to my mind. If the House had so intended when the duties of "Hansard" were taken over by the House, and performed by the Official Reporter and his staff, then a change ought to have been made in the Rules. That is why I suggest that there may be a case for a reconsideration of the present Standing Order.

May I draw your attention to this point—that other officials were allowed to remain in the House, while certain officials were asked to withdraw? Standing Order 90 makes no reference to officials in general, to all officials, or to some officials, who may be asked either to withdraw or to remain when strangers are spied. All that the Standing Order refers to are "strangers," who must leave. What I wish to have made clear is whether all officials of this House are to be looked upon as strangers and, if so, why they should not all have to withdraw? If they are not all strangers, which section if officials of this House is to be looked upon as "strangers" and have to withdraw?

Clearly, the intention of the House when the Standing Order was passed, and when it was amended was, that on such a Motion, the proceedings of the House should not be reported, and the change from "Hansard" to the Official Reporter and his staff has not affected that position, in the absence of any expressed instruction of the House. There the matter stands.

Captain BENN

In the event of the Official Reporters withdrawing, in accordance with the Motion of the House, "That strangers do withdraw," what provision is made for a record of the formal proceedings of the House, the rulings from the Chair, and so forth? If you say that the Votes and Proceedings thereupon become the only official record of the proceedings of the House, may I ask whether there is any opportunity available for any hon. Member who wishes to suggest that they are not full, or that they are inaccurate, to raise the point?

The Votes and Proceedings remain the only record of what has taken place. Of course, if any hon. Member represents to me that the Votes and Proceedings are inaccurate, I will certainly look into the matter.

Captain BENN

I need hardly say that I am not impugning the accuracy of the Votes and Proceedings, but I am asking you what provision there is for taking an official record of the rulings of the Chair, which in secret Session assume an importance even greater than in public Session.

May I put this further point to you? Are we to take it that, if any Messengers are to be seen in the Chamber, or if only the Official Reporters, during an all-night Sitting or at any other time, are seen in the Press Gallery reporting the Proceedings, any hon. Member can draw attention to the fact that there are strangers in the House, and have this Motion put?

I am afraid that is so. It is the ancient practice of the House. There were one or two Select Committees which in past years considered the question, and they declined to recommend any change in the practice.